> The category of writing that I like to call "functional text", which are things like computer code and pure conveyance of information (e.g., recipes, information signs, documentation), is not exposed to the same issues.
I hate this take, computer code is just as rich in personality as writing. I can tell a tremendous amount about what kind of person someone is solely based off their code. Code is an incredibly personal expression of ones mental state, even if you might not realize it. LLMs have dehumanized this and the functional outcomes become FAR more unpredictable.
EWD 1036: On the cruelty of really teaching computing science (1988)
“My point today is that, if we wish to count lines of code, we should not regard them as ‘lines produced’ but as ‘lines spent’: the current conventional wisdom is so foolish as to book that count on the wrong side of the ledger.”
A better formulation is "every feature is a liability". Taking it to the line of code level is too prescriptive. Occasionally writing more verbose code is preferable if it makes it easier to understand.
> A better formulation is "every feature is a liability". Taking it to the line of code level is too prescriptive.
Amount of code is a huge factor but maybe not the best wording here. It's more a thing of complexity where amount of code is a contributing metric but not the only one. You can very easily have a feature implemented in a too complex way and with too much code (esp. if an LLM generated the code but also with human developers). Also not every feature is equal.
> Occasionally writing more verbose code is preferable if it makes it easier to understand.
Think this is more a classic case of "if the metric becomes a goal it ceases to be a metric" than it being a bad metric per se.
This sounds wrong, features have to be the value of your code. The required maintenance and slow down to build more features (technical debt) are the liability, which is how I understood the relationship to "lines of code" anyway.
I can sort of understand it if I squint: every feature is a maintenance burden, and a risk of looking bad in front of users when you break or remove it, even if those users didn't use this feature. It's really a burden to be avoided when the point of your product is to grow its user base, not to actually be useful. Which explains why even Fischer-Price toys look more feature-ful and ergonomic than most new software products.
But more code from AI means stocks go up. Stocks are assets. If you generate enough code the assets will outnumber the liabilities. It’s accounting 101. /s
Agreed, every line you ship,whether you wrote it or not, you are responsible. In that regard, while I write a lot of code completely with AI, I still endeavor to keep the lines as minimal as possible. This means you never write both the main code and the tests using AI. Id rather have no tests than AI tests (we have QA team writing that up). This kinda works.
The only people I've known that share this perspective are those that hate abstraction. Going back to their code, to extend it in some way, almost always requires a rewrite, because they wrote it with the goal of minimum viable complexity rather than understanding the realities of the real world problem they're solving, like "we all know we need these other features, but we have a deadline!"
For one off, this is fine. For anything maintainable, that needs to survive the realities of time, this is truly terrible.
Related, my friend works in a performance critical space. He can't use abstractions, because the direct, bare metal, "exact fit" implementation will perform best. They can't really add features, because it'll throw the timing of others things off to much, so usually have to re-architect. But, that's the reality of their problem space.
Maybe I am? How is it possible to abstract without encapsulation? And also, how is it possible to encapsulate without abstracting some concept (intentionally or not) contained in that encapsulation? I can't really differentiate them, in the context of naming/referencing some list of CPU operations.
> How is it possible to abstract without encapsulation.
Historically pure machine code with jumps etc lacked any from of encapsulation as any data can be accessed and updated by anything.
However, you would still use abstractions. If you pretend the train is actually going 80.2 MPH instead of somewhere between 80.1573 MPH to 80.2485 MPH which you got from different sensors you don’t need to do every calculation that follows twice.
I'm using the industry definition of abstraction [1]:
> In software, an abstraction provides access while hiding details that otherwise might make access more challenging
I read this as "an encapsulation of a concept". In software, I think it can be simplified to "named lists of operations".
> Historically pure machine code with jumps etc lacked any from of encapsulation as any data can be accessed and updated by anything.
Not practically, by any stretch of the imagination. And, if the intent is to write silly code, modern languages don't really change much, it's just the number of operations in the named lists will be longer.
You would use calls and returns (or just jumps if not supported), and then name and reference the resulting subroutine in your assembler or with a comment (so you could reference it as "call 0x23423 // multiply R1 and R2"), to encapsulate the concept. If those weren't supported, you would use named macros [2]. Your assembler would used named operations, sometimes expanding to multiple opcodes, with each opcode having a conceptually relevant name in the manual, which abstracted a logic circuit made with named logic gates, consisting of named switches, that shuffled around named charge carriers. Say your code just did a few operations, the named abstraction for the list of operations (which all these things are) there would be "blink_light.asm".
> If you pretend the train is actually going 80.2 MPH instead of somewhere between 80.1573 MPH to 80.2485 MPH which you got from different sensors you don’t need to do every calculation that follows twice.
I don't see this as an abstraction as much as a simple engineering compromise (of accuracy) dictated by constraint (CPU time/solenoid wear/whatever), because you're not hiding complexity as much as ignoring it.
I see what you're saying, and you're probably right, but I see the concepts as equivalent. I see an abstraction as a functional encapsulation of a concept. An encapsulation, if not nonsense, will be some meaningful abstraction (or a renaming of one).
I'm genuinely interested in an example of an encapsulation that isn't an abstraction, and an abstraction that isn't a conceptual encapsulation, to right my perspective! I can't think of any.
Incorrect definition = incorrect interpretation. I edited this a few times but the separation is you can use an abstraction even if you maintain access to the implementation details.
> assembler
Assembly language which is a different thing. Initially there was no assembler, someone had to write one. In the beginning every line of code had direct access to all memory in part because limited access required extra engineering.
Though even machine code itself is an abstraction across a great number of implementation details.
> I don't see this as an abstraction as much as a simple engineering compromise (of accuracy) dictated by constraint (CPU time/solenoid wear/whatever), because you're not hiding complexity as much as ignoring it.
If it makes you feel better consider the same situation with 5 senators X of which have failed. The point is you don’t need to consider all information at every stage of a process. Instead of all the underlying details you can write code that asks do we have enough information to get a sufficiently accurate speed? What is it?
It doesn’t matter if the code could still look at the raw sensor data, you the programmer prefer the abstraction so it persists even without anything beyond yourself enforcing it.
IE: “hiding details that otherwise might make access more challenging”
You can use TCP/IP or anything else as an abstraction even if you maintain access to the lower level implementation details.
I genuinely appreciate your response, because there's a good chance it'll result in me changing my perspective, and I'm asking these questions with that intent!
> You are thinking of assembly language which is a different thing. Initially there was no assembler, someone had to write one.
This is why I specifically mention opcodes. I've actually written assemblers! And...there's not much to them. It's mostly just replacing the names given to the opcodes in the datasheet back to the opcodes, with a few human niceties. ;)
> consider the same situation with 5 senators X of which have failed
Ohhhhhhhh, ok. I kind of see. Unfortunately, I don't see the difference between abstraction and encapsulation here. I see the abstraction as being speed as being the encapsulation of a set of sensors, ignoring irrelevant values.
I feel like I'm almost there. I may have edited my previous comment after you replied. My "no procrastination" setting kicked in, and I couldn't see.
I don't see how "The former is about semantic levels, the later about information hiding." are different. In my mind, semantic levels exist as compression and encapsulation of information. If you're saying encapsulation means "black box" then that could make sense to me, but "inaccessible" isn't part of the definition, just "containment".
Computer Science stole the term abstraction from the field of Mathematics. I think mathematics can be really helpful in clearing things up here.
A really simple abstraction in mathematics is that of numeric basis (e.g. base 10) for representing numbers. Being able to use the symbol 3 is much more useful than needing to write III. Of course, numbers themselves are an abstraction- perhaps you and I can reason about 3 and 7 and 10,000 in a vacuum, but young children or people who have never been exposed to numbers without units struggle to understand. Seven… what? Dogs? Bottles? Days? Numbers are an abstraction, and Arabic digits are a particular abstraction on top of that.
Without that abstraction, we would have insufficient tools to do more complex things such as, say, subtract 1 from 1,000,000,000. This is a problem that most 12 year olds can solve, but the greatest mathematicians of the Roman empire could not, because they did not have the right abstractions.
So if there are abstractions that enable us to solve problems that were formerly impossible, this means there is something more going on than “hiding information”. In fact, this is what Dijkstra (a mathematician by training) meant when he said:
The purpose of abstraction is not to be vague, but to create a new semantic level in which one can be absolutely precise
When I use open(2), it’s because I’m operating at the semantic level of files. It’s not sensible to think of a “file” at a lower level: would it be on disk? In memory? What about socket files? But a “file” isn’t a real thing, it’s an abstraction created by the OS. We can operate on files, these made up things, and we can compose operations together in complex, useful ways. The idea of a file opens new possibilities for things we can do with computers.
Expanding on this regarding the difference between abstraction vs encapsulation: abstraction is about the distillation of useful concepts while encapsulation is a specific tactic used to accomplish a behavior.
To continue with the idea of numbers, let’s say you asked someone to add 3 and 5. Is that encapsulation? What information are you hiding? You are not asking them to add coins or meters or reindeer. 3 and 5 are values independent of any underlying information. The numbers aren’t encapsulating anything.
Encapsulation is different. When you operate a motor vehicle, you concern yourself with the controls presented. This allows you, as the operator, to only need a tiny amount of knowledge to interact with an incredibly complex machine. This details have been encapsulated. There may be particular abstraction present, such as the notion of steering, acceleration, and breaking, but the way you interact with these will differ from vehicle to vehicle. Additionally, encapsulation is not concerned with the idea of steering, it is concerned with how to present steering in this specific case.
The two ideas are connected because using an abstraction in software often involves encapsulation. But they should not be conflated, out the likely result is bad abstractions and unwieldy encapsulation.
> It's mostly just replacing the names given to the opcodes in the datasheet back to the opcodes
Under the assumption that the input data is properly formatted you can generate machine code. This is however an abstraction which can fail as nothing forces a user to input valid files.
So we have an abstraction without any encapsulation.
I can only see that as being the case if you weren't aware of it. Otherwise, the awareness would be explicit intent to fail on malformed input, which seems like just as much as an encapsulation?
But, that's a great example! Thank you. This makes it clear that I'm probably sometimes wrong. ;)
I don't see how the two are related, personally. I'm regularly accused of over-abstraction specifically because I aspire to make each abstraction do as little as possible, i.e. fewest lines possible.
"Abstracting" means extracting the commnon parts of multiple instances, and making everything else a parameter. The difficulty for software is that developers often start by writing the abstraction, rather than having multiple existing instances and then writing code that collects the common parts of those multiple instances into a single abstraction. I guess that is what "refactoring" is about.
In sciences and humanities abstraction is applied the proper way, studying the instances first then describing multitude of existing phenomena by giving names to their common repeating descriptions.
This matches my "ideal" way of writing software, which is something close to "reverse waterfall". Start with the non-negotiable truths at the lowest level, then work your way up towards the goal, which is sufficiently defined. As you go, the patterns became apparent, collapsing into nice abstractions.
The code always ends up nice and clean and modular. And, since I'm working towards the idea, I can say "here are the modular pieces I have to work with, dictated the fundamentals beneath, how do I use them to accomplish the task?". When working from the idea, I think it's easier to want to write something to achieve the immediate task, in a "not see the forest for the trees" kind of way (abstractions are about the goal, rather than the reality under). Of course, both directions are required, but I get the best "separation of concerns" going in reverse.
I call that lasagna code! From what I've seen, developers start with spaghetti, overcompensate with lasagna, then end up with some organization more optimized for the human, that minimizes cognitive load while reading.
To me, abstraction is an encapsulation of some concept. I can't understand how they're practically different, unless you encapsulate true nonsense, without purpose or resulting meaning, which I can't think of an example of, since humans tend to categorize/name everything. I'm dumb.
Ya, the post is almost laser focused on "SaaS" as a concept. Which is fine, but there are MANY other types of software that will see different effects.
reply